Abstract.

According to the new

economic models, knowledge has to
be incorporated in production
functions as a key factor. Therefore,
in the new knowledge based
economy the main challenge is to
develop, combine and integrate the
knowledge of thousands of
employees within an organizational
framework. The main purpose of
this paper is to present a new model
of organizational knowledge dynamics developed by the authors by
using the Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) methodology. The
research approach is both theoretical and empirical. The developed
model was tested within the
Romanian business environment
and the results prove the existence
of high correlations between the
results of the model and the actual
strategies with regard to knowledge
of the company, thus enhancing the
efficiency of the model.
Keywords: Analytic Hierarchy
Process
(AHP),
knowledge
modelling, Organizational Knowledge Dynamics (OKD) Model.

THE ORGANIZATIONAL
KNOWLEDGE DYNAMICS (OKD)
MODEL. CASE STUDY VODAFONE
ROMANIA

Constantin BRTIANU
Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest
Piaa Roman no. 6, Bucharest, Romania
e-mail: cbratianu@yahoo.com

Ivona ORZEA
Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest
Piaa Roman no. 6, Bucharest, Romania
e-mail: ivona.orzea@gmail.com

Management & Marketing

Challenges for the Knowledge Society
(2011) Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 393-406

Management & Marketing

1. Introduction
Knowledge has become important economic growth force and, consequently,
important variable in the new theories and models of economic development (BecerraFernandez & Sabherwal, 2010; Debowski, 2006; Geisler & Wickramasinghe, 2009;
Jashapara, 2011; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). The classic theories and models contain
variables derived from the tangible economic environment, with emphasis on capital,
labor, materials and energy. Knowledge has been regarded upon as external factors
capable of influencing the production functions. But, according to the new economic
models, knowledge has to be incorporated in these functions as a key factor. In the
new knowledge based economy the main challenge is to develop, combine and
integrate the knowledge of thousands of employees within an organizational
framework. This would mean to create an environment in which knowledge can be
easily acquired, transferred and used. Therefore, the modern organizations, wanting to
accept the new challenges of the knowledge based economy, must evolve towards
becoming knowledge creating, integrating but, also, protecting organizations.
The main difficulty of understanding and operating with knowledge and
intellectual capital comes from the intangible nature of knowledge and its strongly
nonlinear character (Brtianu, 2009; Brtianu, 2011; Davenport & Prusak, 2000).
Linearity is a property of conceptual spaces that satisfy a set of operations, and this
property is embedded in the tangible world as a result of our thinking pattern. Just for
illustration we may consider three arbitrary numbers representing money: a = 5; b = 10;
c = 100. Let N be the set of all natural numbers. Then, let us apply the scalar
requirements for a linear space (Brtianu, 2009):
If 5 and 10 are numbers in N, then 5 + 10 is also a number in N.
If 100 is a number in N, then 100 5 is also a number in N.
The number addition is commutative: 5 + 10 = 10 + 5.
The number addition is associative: (5 + 10) + 100 = 5 + (10 + 100).
There is an identity element such that: 5 + 0 = 0 + 5.
There is an inverse element such that: 5 + ( 5) = 0.
There is distributivity over number addition: (5 + 10) 100 = 5 100 +
10 100.
In this case, all of the above requirements are satisfied, and the linearity
property can be defined. Linearity can also be discovered as a dominant property for
the thinking pattern used to handle problems in the tangibles domain. Linear thinking
patterns are used as cognitive approximations for real complex situations. It is like
using linear segments to approximate curves of different shapes. The linear thinking
pattern is a conceptual construct representing linear processes, which are based on
linear equations. In simple words, a process is linear when the output or the final result
is proportional with the input. It is such an easy way of thinking that our everyday life
is full of linear thinking examples. For instance, all measurements systems are based
on this thinking pattern. Let us consider temperature measurements, by using
thermometers. Regardless of the temperature scale used (i.e. Celsius or Fahrenheit) the

394

The Organizational Knowledge Dynamics (OKD) Model

mercury dilation is proportional to the measured temperature. Let us consider the

process of heating the water contained in a small tea kettle put on a gas stove. We
introduce a thermometer inside the water and watch carefully its indication. Due to
heat received the water temperature is increasing linearly up to 100 degree Celsius,
and then stops. It is the saturation temperature when water is transformed into steam.
This is a phase transformation, and from physical point of view it is a nonlinear
process. Thus, the linear property of heating the water is not transferred to the phase
change. The temperature of 100 degree Celsius becomes a frontier for the water
heating, although the gas stove has not been put off. It is an interesting phenomenon to
keep in mind when we switch from the tangible world to the intangible one. The
knowledge field is strongly nonlinear, and all of the above operations that are
characteristic for the linear space do not apply anymore. For instance, in applying the
commutative rule we cannot have:
The cat + eats + the mouse = The mouse + eats + the cat
These is a simple example, but in the knowledge field we may think of more
complex examples involving emotions, theories and even some transformations
between them (Brtianu, 2011). Linearity is like a barrier between the field of
tangibles and the field of intangibles. We stress this idea because we are going to
present our Organizational Knowledge Dynamics (OKD) model, based on ideas
coming from the laws of conservations. However, we do not consider the tangible
quantitative aspects of the equation components but the intangible functional relations
between them. This new model of the organizational knowledge dynamics is
conceived in a different perspective than the well known Nonaka model (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995). In the same time, the mathematical approach is based on the Saatys
Analytic Hierarchy process (AHP). The research approach is both theoretical and
empirical.

2. The Organizational Knowledge Dynamics (OKD) Theory

Any organization is constantly under the action of two fields of forces, the
internal field of forces and the external field of forces. These two fields are in a
continuous movement. The external environment, subject to a large number of forces
acting towards its modification, conditions at its turn the modification of the forces
acting within the internal environment of the organization. As knowledge has become
the main resource of any organization, onto it exerts their action both the internal and
the external field of forces, which in turn imprint knowledge a dynamic character. Due
to the dynamic character, the total quantity of knowledge of an organization changes
over time under the action of three main processes: knowledge creation, knowledge
acquisition and, last but not least, knowledge loss. These processes have been
integrated into a new model of Organizational Knowledge Dynamics (OKD).
Moreover, analyzing the impact of each of the processes onto the total quantity of
knowledge, it can be easily concluded that the processes of knowledge creation and

395

Management & Marketing

acquisition will have a positive impact, whereas knowledge loss will have a negative
impact (Brtianu, Agapie & Orzea, 2011).
Knowledge creation is a complex process and it involves both explicit and
tacit knowledge. Also, we may consider both cognitive knowledge and emotional
knowledge (Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2010; Brtianu & Orzea, 2010;
Davenport & Prusak, 2000; Jashapara, 2011). Organizational knowledge may be born
as a result of an individual action or as a result of a social interaction, in the Ba space.
Of the four modes of knowledge conversion, externalization is the key to knowledge
creation because it creates new, explicit concepts from tacit knowledge (Nonaka,
Toyama & Byosiere, 2001, p. 495). In the Nonakas model, externalization and
internalization on one hand, and socialization and combination on the other hand need
a specific context of meanings and a framework of same thinking patterns in order to
be operational. This context is considered to be Ba. Thus, Ba is in the same time a
physical and a non-physical space where social interchange can take place and
generate knowledge. It can be a context for an individual, a team or even an
organization. Ba is a shared context in motion, since it is constantly under change
forces. It is a conceptual working space where individual subjectivity meets the other
objectivity and through social interaction knowledge is generated.
Knowledge acquisition is a result of the knowledge influx from the external
business environment. Knowledge is usually imbedded in books, written papers,
knowledge databases, software, and different training programs organized by
specialized companies. Also, knowledge can be imbedded in patents, trade marks, and
different copy rights. For instance, franchising is a well known approach of knowledge
acquisition in business. In many companies knowledge acquisition is preferred to the
knowledge generation because it is much easy to be performed.
Knowledge loss is also a complex process that involves: forgetting,
unlearning, retirement or just leaving the company from different individual or
organizational causes. These different activities can be grouped into two main
categories: intentional unlearning and unintentional unlearning, and the knowledge
loss represents their final result. It can be argued that the presence of an internal
context that fosters the replacement of old knowledge is likely to be essential if
organizations are to implement and use new knowledge. To this end, we propose
unlearning context to enable intentional unlearning. At its heart, this context
facilitates the reorientation of organizational values, norms, and/or behaviors by
changing cognitive structures, mental models, dominant logics and core assumptions
that guide behavior (Cegarra, 2011, p. 17).
Based on these above considerations, we can write the equilibrium equation of
the total quantity of organizational knowledge available within a determined (T) time
interval as:
K = Fc(Cr) + Fa(A) Fl(L)

(1)

396

The Organizational Knowledge Dynamics (OKD) Model

where: K represents the organizational knowledge variation within the determined

time interval; Cr the variation of knowledge creation within T time interval; A
knowledge acquisition variation within T time interval; L knowledge loss
variation within T time interval; Fc, Fa, Fl the weight coefficients of each of the
factor of the equation.
At its turn, each factor of the equilibrium equation is influenced by the
managerial strategies that determine their variation. Consequently, the equilibrium
equation for a generic factor can be written as follows:
C = w1(A1) + w2(A2) + w3(A3) + w4(A4)

(2)

where: C represents the variation of the generic component (knowledge creation,

knowledge acquisition, knowledge loss) within the determined time interval T; Ai
the variation of the strategy C through the organizational activity Ai, during the time
interval T, and wi the weight coefficient of the activity Ai.
Thus, the level of knowledge in organization depends of how much new
knowledge is creating during a given time period, how much knowledge is obtained
from the external environment through different methods in the same time period, and
on the knowledge loss toward the external environment through people leaving the
company. People may leave the company due to their retirement age, in searching for
better professional and payment opportunities, or being fired.
Because the variation of the three processes of the equilibrium equation from
the model of organizational knowledge dynamics contributes to the variation of the
total quantity of organizational knowledge in different extents, with different weights,
the second part of the model is based on the method introduced by Saaty (1980),
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP method uses a hierarchy with several levels,
structured in objectives, criteria, sub criteria, alternatives. In its general form, the AHP
is a nonlinear framework for carrying out both deductive and inductive thinking
without use of the syllogism. It is used to derive relative priorities on absolute scales
from both discrete and continuous paired comparisons in multilevel hierarchic
structures (Saaty & Vargas, 2006).
Using the AHP method philosophy, the first step in order to identify the
weights of the component factors of the equilibrium equation is to structure the
problem under discussion. Thus, for the organizational knowledge dynamics we used
a three layers structure. The general objective, to increase the total quantity of
organizational knowledge, is evaluated in terms of members perception with regard
to four activities: (A1) recruitment of new qualified human resources; (A2)
development of training programs; (A3) the creation of an efficient motivation system;
(A4) acquisition of books, journals, software and other informative materials. The
evaluation of the objective is done in terms of three knowledge strategies or criteria as
well: (C1) increase of knowledge creation processes strategy; (C2) increase of
knowledge acquisition strategy; (C3) the reduction of knowledge loss strategies.
Consequently, a three level hierarchy has been considered as framework where the

397

Management & Marketing

employees can express their opinion from a quantitative point of view with respect to
the general objective (Figure 1). The structure of the whole organizational process of
knowledge dynamics is based on the theory of knowledge field, developed by
Brtianu (Brtianu & Andriessen, 2008; Brtianu, 2011). This theory represents a
metaphorical approach to the theory of energy field from science. Basically, the
organizational knowledge can be represented by a continuous field of knowledge that
is nonuniform and nonhomogeneous. Nonuniformity generates fluxes of knowledge
from one part to another within the organization, while non-homogeneity allows for
the presence of different forms of knowledge, like explicit and tacit knowledge,
cognitive and emotional knowledge.
Increase of organizational
knowledge

Knowledge
creation (C1)

New human
resourses (A1)

Knowledge
acquistion (C2)

Training programs
(A2)

Knowledge loss
(C3)

Motivational
systems (A3)

Knowledge bases
acquisition (A4)

Figure 1. Knowledge dynamics structure using AHP method

3. Research methodology
To verify the accuracy of the model we have decided to test it within
organizations from the Romanian business environment. In order to attain the
aforementioned objective a questionnaire was used. The questionnaire was designed
based on the model of organizational knowledge dynamics, approached from the AHP
method perspective. In the first part of the questionnaire was dedicated to gathering
general information about the position of the respondent in the considered company.
The questionnaires second part was devoted to the determination of the priority
vectors of the three chosen criteria in the knowledge variation in organization: (C1)
increase of knowledge creation processes strategy; (C2) increase of knowledge
acquisition strategy; (C3) the reduction of knowledge loss strategies. The goal of the
company considered in this research is to increase the total level of organizational
knowledge. The measurement scale used is the one described by Saaty (1980, 1990)
with 9 levels of measurement. As described at AHP methodology, each pairwise
comparison question has two parts. The first part aims at identifying the most

398

The Organizational Knowledge Dynamics (OKD) Model

important strategy out of the two under study, while the second part of the question
aims at determining the respondents perception with regard to relative importance of
the strategy previously determined more important within the pairwise comparison.
The general structure of the questionnaire is as follows. In square brackets is presented
an example of answer.
1. a) Given the goal, what do you think is more important: the strategy for
increasing knowledge creation (C1) or the strategy of increasing acquisitions of new
knowledge (C2). [C1]
b) Please indicate, on a scale from 1 to 9, to what extent you consider your
previous choice is more important than the other one. [6]
2. a) Given the goal, what do you think is more important: the strategy for
increasing knowledge creation (C1) or the strategy for reducing knowledge loss
(C3). [C3]
b) Please indicate, on a scale from 1 to 9, to what extent you consider your
previous choice is more important than the other one. [4]
3. a) Given the goal, what do you think is more important: the strategy of
increasing acquisitions of new knowledge (C2) or the strategy for reducing knowledge
loss (C3). [C3]
b) Please indicate, on a scale from 1 to 9, to what extent you consider your
previous choice is more important than the other one. [6]
The surveys third part is devoted to the determination of the priority vectors
of the alternatives (hiring new valuable human resources (A1), developing training
programs (A2), creating a performing motivation for the employees (A3) and
purchasing books, journals, software programs and other informative materials (A4))
taking into consideration the criterions in the above level of hierarchy. For the first
criterion or strategy for increasing knowledge creation (C1), questions were formulated
as follows:
1. a) Given the criterion (C1), what do you think is more important: hiring
new valuable human resources (A1) or developing training programs (A2)? [A2]
b) Please indicate, on a scale from 1 to 9, to what extent you consider your
previous choice is more important than the other one. [8]
2. a) Given the criterion (C1), what do you think is more important: hiring
new valuable human resources (A1) or creating a performing motivation for the
employees (A3)? [A3]
b) Please indicate, on a scale from 1 to 9 to what extent you consider your
previous choice is more important than the other one. [8]
3. a) Given the criterion (C1), what do you think is more important: hiring
new valuable human resources (A1) or purchasing books, journals, software programs
and other informative materials (A4)? [A4]
b) Please indicate, on a scale from 1 to 9 to what extent you consider your
previous choice is more important than the other one. [5]

399

Management & Marketing

4. a) Given the criterion (C1), what do you think is more important:

developing training programs (A2) or creating a performing motivation for the
employees (A3)? [A3]
b) Please indicate, on a scale from 1 to 9, to what extent you consider your
previous choice is more important than the other one. [7]
5. a) Given the criterion (C1), what do you think is more important:
developing training programs (A2) or purchasing books, journals, software
programs and other informative materials (A4)? [A2]
b) Please indicate, on a scale from 1 to 9, to what extent you consider your
previous choice is more important than the other one. [5]
6. a) Given the criterion (C1), what do you think is more important:
developing creating a performing motivation for the employees (A3) or purchasing
books, journals, software programs and other informative materials (A4)? [A3]
b) Please indicate, on a scale from 1 to 9, to what extent you consider your
previous choice is more important than the other one.[8]
Similar questions as those from 1 to 6 are establishing comparisons among
alternatives A1 to A4 with respect to the next two criteria, C2 and C3, so that a total of
21 questions are used as a base for establishing decision matrices associated with one
respondent.
The criteria used in the selection process of the companies to participate to the
testing of the model included: a sufficiently large number of employees (preferably
over 50) involved on a continuous basis in the organizational decision making process
and organizational orientation towards knowledge management processes. The criteria
expressed aimed at obtaining clear data onto the phenomena under observation and a
better operational control of the data collection process. The company S.C. Vodafone
Romania S.A. respected the criteria expressed, thus we tested the model of
organizational knowledge dynamics within the companys headquarters in the period
November December 2010. In 2010, the company had more than 3500 employees
with growth expectations despite the global economic crisis. Moreover, the company
has an orientation towards knowledge management having a knowledge management
department. The objective of knowledge management within the company, according
to the statements of the Vice-president of Human Resources, Anca Podeleanu
(Dogariu, 2007), is to enhance the decision processes, to integrate and reintegrate the
employees experiences, to increase the innovations and to transform the information
into knowledge to be further used in the processes of new knowledge creation. The
employees actively participate to the strategic projects of the company, having at their
disposal data bases with similar projects undergone by colleagues from other
countries, legislative information, local and international press articles and, also,
personalized discussions forums (Dogariu, 2007).
There were electronically distributed 200 questionnaires to the employees in
middle and top management positions from various departments of the company.
The response rate was of 49.5%. Following the AHP methodology the first step in
data analysis is to construct the judgment matrix corresponding to each respondent.

400

The Organizational Knowledge Dynamics (OKD) Model

The first matrix, denoted with [C], [C] = (cij)i,j=1,2,3, corresponds to the pairwise
comparisons between the three strategies (C1, C2, C3). It is a positive, reciprocal (cij>0,
cij=1/cji, i,j=1,2,3 and ij) matrix with the elements of the main diagonal equal to 1
(cii=1, i=1,2,3). If, for example, strategy C1 is considered 6 times more important than
strategy C2, we can write C1 >6 C2, and within the judgment matrix we assign to c12 the
value 6 (c12=6). As the judgment matrix is reversible with regards to preferences, we
can say that strategy C2 was preferred to strategy C1 with a value of 1/6, therefore, we
assign within the judgment matrix to c21 element the value 0.1666 (c21=0.166). The
next three matrices correspond to the choices done among the alternatives A1, A2, A3,
A4 from three points of view: the strategy for increasing knowledge creation (C1), the
strategy of increasing acquisitions of new knowledge (C2) and the strategy for
reducing knowledge loss (C3). These matrices are denoted C1 A1,A2,A3,A4 and
respectively C2 A1,A2,A3,A4 , C3 A1,A2,A3,A4.
For all this four matrices, the corresponding vector of priorities is calculated in
an eigenvalue formulation. The solution is obtained by raising the matrix to a
sufficiently large power, then summing over the rows and normalizing to obtain the
priority vector. The process is stopped when the difference between components of the
priority vector obtained at the k-th power and at the (k+1) power is less than some
predetermined small value. The vector of priorities is the derived scale associated with
the matrix of comparisons (Saaty, 1994; Saaty, 2009). After setting priorities for the
criteria, pair wise comparisons are also made ratings themselves to set priorities for
them under each criterion and dividing each of their priorities by the largest rated
intensity to get the ideal intensity. Finally, alternatives are scored by checking off their
respective ratings under each criterion and summing these ratings for all criteria. For
the example considered in the section above, the first two pairwise comparison
matrices are given in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1
The pairwise comparison matrix C
Absolute judgments
amongst criteria
C1
C2
C3

C1
1
0.166
4

C2

C3

6
1
6

0.25
0.166
1

Table 2
The pairwise comparison matrix C1 A1,A2,A3,A4
Absolute judgments amongst alternatives
with respect to Criterion 1
A1
A2
A3
A4

401

A1
1
8
8
5

A2

A3

0.125
1
7
0.2

0.125
0.142
1
0.125

A4
0.2
5
8
1

Management & Marketing

The correspondent vector of priorities for the C matrix calculated as briefly

presented above is given by any column in the above normalized matrix, as presented
in Table 3.
Table 3
Vector of priorities for the pairwise comparison
matrix C

C1
C2
C3

Vector of priorities for the pairwise comparison

matrix C
0.20736
0.09572
0.69691

Table 4
Corresponding vector of priorities to matrices
C1 A1,A2,A3,A4, C2 A1,A2,A3,A4, C3 A1,A2,A3,A4

A1
A2
A3
A4

Vector of priorities
corresponding to matrix C1
A1,A2,A3,A4
0.07536
0.12651
0.70623
0.09188

Vector of priorities
corresponding to matrix C2
A1,A2,A3,A4
0.67814
0.15191
0.09432
0.07561

Vector of priorities
corresponding to matrix C3
A1,A2,A3,A4
0.03784
0.35230
0.10885
0.50099

After we presented the simple example with the answers indicated arbitrarily
in square brackets, we shall present the main results of our case study. In the first stage
we considered each respondents answer, and then we aggregate all their answers.
Following exactly the same algorithm we present in the Table 5 an example of a full
judgment matrix of a random respondent from the company under study.
Table 5
The priority vectors matrix corresponding to a random respondent
Respondent 43

A1
A2
A3
A4

C1

C2

C3

0.78853047

0.08781362

0.12365591

0.67757623
0.09971132
0.13421919
0.08849327

0.55067204
0.12075257
0.07416988
0.25440551

0.04415841
0.01943345
0.18601968
0.75038846

Aggregated values
of the alternatives

0.5881065
0.0916322
0.1353515
0.1849099

According to the results presented in Table 5 we can conclude that, at selected

respondent level, the most important strategy in order to achieve the general objective
of increase in the quantity of organizational knowledge, is strategy C1, the increase of

402

The Organizational Knowledge Dynamics (OKD) Model

knowledge creation processes, with the highest value of 0.7885. The second place in
the hierarchy of preferences at the level of the selected respondent is strategy C3,
reduce the loss of knowledge, with a value of 0.123. And, the third place in the
hierarchy is occupied by strategy C2, increase of knowledge acquisition, with the
lowest value of 0.0878.
In order to establish the composite or global priorities of the alternatives
considered we lay out in a matrix the local priorities of the alternatives with respect to
each criterion and multiply each column of vectors by the priority of the
corresponding criterion and add across each row, which results in the composite or
global priority vector of the alternatives. The results obtained are presented in the
column Aggregated values of the alternatives from Table 5. Therefore, according to
these results, the selected respondent, considers alternative A1, recruitment of new
qualified human resources, the most important in order to achieve the general
objective, with a value of 0.5881. Alternative A4, acquisition of expertise books,
magazines and journals, ranks the second place within the preferred alternatives, being
closely followed by alternative A3, efficient personnel motivation, having a value
sensible smaller than the previous one. The selected respondent, considers alternative
A2, development of training programs, the least preferred, with a value of 0.091
The aggregation of the individual priorities both at strategy and alternative
level was realized by calculating the arithmetic mean of the elements of the individual
vectors of priorities. The results are presented in Table 6. With a global value of
0.333728, strategy C1, increase of knowledge creation processes, ranks first in the
preferences list of the respondents. Strategy C3, reduction of knowledge loss, with a
value sensible smaller than strategy C1, 0.3342, ranks second in what concerns the
priorities in obtaining the general objective of increase of total quantity of
organizational knowledge. The differences in the values of the global vector of
priorities corresponding to the strategies are very small, which denotes a relatively
equilibrated approach of the processes of knowledge management. A possible
explanation of these results can be based on the fact that the company has over a
decade experience within the Romanian business environment, and in that period of
time the management of the company managed to maintain it in the top of most
competitive companies.
Table 6
The matrix of global priority vectors
Global level

A1
A2
A3
A4

C1

C2

C3

0.33728707

0.32850184

0.33421109

0.34433433
0.3237552
0.16917937
0.1627311

0.38872747
0.24283925
0.10651748
0.26191581

0.0948186
0.15918846
0.51098198
0.23501096

403

Aggregated values of
global alternatives

0.275527
0.242174
0.262829
0.21947

Management & Marketing

Moreover, the company benefited by the affiliation to a multinational group,

with strategies and visions imposed by the mother company, Vodafone UK, where the
initiatives in the field of knowledge management started at the end of 90s.
Therefore, based on the results obtained from the processing of the data
collected we can rewrite the organizational knowledge dynamics (OKD) equilibrium
equation for the company Vodafone Romania as follows:
K = 0.33728 (Cr) + 0.32850 (A) 0.33421 (L)

(3)

The same tendency of slight differentiation is observed in the case of

alternatives too. The alternative with the highest value, 0.2755, is alternative A1,
recruitment of new qualified human resources, followed by alternative A3, efficient
motivation of existent personnel, with a value of 0.2628. Closely connected in terms
of values with alternative A3, is alternative A2, development of training programs,
with a value of 0.2421. The least preferred of the four alternatives is alternative A4,
acquisition of expertise books, magazines, journals, with a value of 0.2194.

Conclusions
As knowledge has become the key factor within the new knowledge based
economy the organizations must evolve towards becoming knowledge creating,
integrating but, also, protecting organizations. But the main difficulty comes from the
intangible nature of knowledge and its strongly nonlinear character. Moreover, the
continuous interactions among various forms of knowledge and the action of both the
internal and external field of forces imprints knowledge a strong dynamic character.
The paper presents a model developed in order to incorporate the dynamics of
organizational knowledge by integrating the action of three main processes:
knowledge creation, knowledge acquisition and knowledge loss. We would like to
make a special remark on knowledge sharing. Although knowledge sharing is an
important component of the organizational knowledge dynamics, it does not
contribute to the increase of the total level of knowledge in organization. It contributes
only to the increase of the average knowledge level in the organization through the
levelling out of the knowledge field nonuniformities. Thus, knowledge sharing is not a
part of the equilibrium equation, but is a part of the general process of knowledge
dynamics within the organization. Knowledge sharing contributes directly to the
increase of the organizational entropy.
The mathematical method we used in this analysis was based on the Analytic
Hierarchy Process developed by Saaty, and used in managerial decision making. The
main goal of the research is to determine the priorities of the alternatives the members
of the organization have in order to achieve an increase of the total quantity of the

404

The Organizational Knowledge Dynamics (OKD) Model

organizational knowledge. Determining these priorities, the organization can develop

knowledge strategies to encourage but, also, reward the increase of organizational
knowledge.

Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the support received from UEFISCSU
ROMANIA through PNII research project ID_1812/2008.

References
Becerra-Fernandez, I., Sabherwal, R., Knowledge management. Systems and processes, M.E.
Sharpe, New York, 2010
Brtianu, C., Changing paradigm for knowledge metaphors from dynamics to thermodynamics,
System Research and Behavioral Science, 28, pp. 160-169
Brtianu, C. (2009), The frontier of linearity in the intellectual capital metaphor, Electronic
Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(4), 2011, pp. 415-424
Brtianu, C., Agapie, A., Orzea, I., Knowledge dynamics modelling using Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP), Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital,
University of Nicosia, Cyprus, 18-19 April 2011, Academic Publishing International,
Reading, UK, 2011, pp. 94-102
Brtianu, C., Andriessen, D., Knowledge as energy: a metaphorical analysis, in: Proceedings
of the 9th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Southampton Solent
University, 4-5 September 2008, Academic Publishing, Reading, 2008, pp. 75-82
Brtianu, C., Orzea, I., Organizational knowledge dynamics, Management & Marketing.
Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 5(3), 2010, pp. 41-62
Cegarra, J., Unlearning speech, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Managing
Services in the Knowledge Economy MSKE 2011, 13-15 July 2011, Universidade
Lusiada de Villa Nova de Famalicao, Portugal, 2011, p. 17
Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L., Working knowledge. How organizations manage what they know,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2000
Debowski, S., Knowledge management, John Wiley & Sons Australia, Sydney, 2006
Dogariu, T., Creativitatea, funcie de cunoatere, Theinvestor.ro, issue April 1, 2007,
retrieved March, 10 2011, available at: http://www.theinvestor.ro/hr/creativitatea-functiede-cunoastere/
Geisler, E., Wickramasinghe, N. (2009), Principles of knowledge management. Theory,
practice, and cases, M.E. Sharpe, New York
Jashapara, A. (2011), Knowledge management. An integrated approach, Prentice Hall, London
Lefter, V., Bratianu, C., Agapie, A., Agoston, S., Orzea, I. (2011), Intergenerational
knowledge transfer in the academic environment of the knowledge-based economy,
Amfiteatru Economic, 30, pp. 307-319
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995), The knowledge-creating company. How Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation, Oxford University Press, New York

405

Management & Marketing

Saaty, T.L. (1980), The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource
allocation, McGraw-Hill International Book Co, New York
Saaty, T.L., How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of
Operational Research, 48, 1990, pp. 9-26
Saaty, T.L., Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytical
hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research, 74, 1994, pp. 426-447
Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G. (2006), Decision making with the analytic network process, Springer,
New York

406